Bit of a tangent, but I hear Haier’s legal department can be reached at cybergovernance@haier-europe.com, if anyone has any questions about the legal grounds they’re claiming, I’m sure they’d be happy to elaborate - they clearly have plenty of free time on their hands.
From what I read, this project does help integrate with HA to avoid using the Haier app, but still uses Haier’s cloud. Can anyone confirm if this was true?
Based on the documentation on the GitHub, it looks like it does use Haier’s cloud. Which, doesn’t make Haier’s actions any less shitty, but I can understand a company not wanting a bunch of users using their undocumented API, especially if there’s potential to have automations hitting it more frequently than their own app does (not that I have any reason to believe this project was actually being inefficient with API calls).
EDIT: sorry, I read it wrong, I thought the reply says the addon “doesn’t” use the remote API.
I digged a bit on the code, and every command indeed go through the cloud. So even if you use this addon, Haire can still collect a fair bit of data about you, since there is no way to communicate locally and directly to the AC.
But the addon only sends the minimum amount of data to achieve functionality, so definitely not as much data as using Haire’s app.
Can you link to where the documentation that specify they don’t use API?
Because I am looking at pyhOn (dependency of hon, and also being taken down), it seems like when executing a command, they do contact the cloud. Specefically
<span style="color:#323232;">url: str = f"{const.API_URL}/commands/v1/send"
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> async with self._hon.post(url, json=data) as response:
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> ...
</span>
Yeah, so I can kinda understand Haier’s position here though they probably could have just set/quoted some ToC’s on using their cloud services.
It also means that IMO the plugins weren’t offering much other than integration, and this probably would have been a product I’d have avoided even before they started acting like dicks.
Local control or bust (or ability to reprogrammed with FOSS firmware)
I’m a long time heavily modded minecraft player, and I’ve never heard of this issue. If you want proper feedback, I’d suggest adding more context. (That is to say, an outline of the feedback, so we don’t have to wade through 6 years of discussion.)
Minecraft has always had a janky aesthetic, so this doesn’t seem like it’s particularly out of the ordinary.
That’s a good point. I wasn’t really sure where to put the cutoff point nor how to define it. Another problem is what consists as anti-OSS behavior. Is anti-right-to-repair part of it?
Good question! May I suggest some kind of poll or questionaire to gather what the majority thinks constitutes oss hostile or anti oss behavior. Maybe it would also be good to question the purpose of this list to maybe find a logical cutoff point that way. Example: If naming and shaming is the purpose then it might not matter if anti right to repair or just not giving any api access since it makes controling stuff you bought harder by choice.
I always choose this kind of philosophical approach since it helps me make decision.
It’s probably a good idea to have a stronger definition and mission. Here are a few scenarios you should consider.
FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.
Mongo wrote the SSPL and MariaDB wrote the BSL. Both licenses are seen as regressions. I personally respect the MariaDB case and have been harassed by too many Mongo salespeople to say the same about them.
Platforms like AWS are the reason companies like CockroachDB and Elastic implemented restrictive licenses.
IBM has been gutting open source through its acquisition of Red Hat. This is a common story; Oracle has been screwing *nix longer.
Protecting trademarks causes a lot of consternation from users. The Rust Foundation is the most recent example of this I remember blowing up the FOSS community.
I like your idea a lot. I think it needs some definition to be very successful!
I personally use Apache 2.0 because it’s been upheld in court. I’m not sure if MPL has been directly challenged in court. Either way, I agree with the sentiment. The legal perspective is why I moved away from MIT/ISC.
you should considwr MPL, if someone found a security vulneravility theyd be legally obligated to tell yoy for example. also, it still allows commerical closed source software. try it!!
FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.
I’m not planning on counting that as hostile behavior. Organizations can choose a license for their software (and I can choose not to buy/use it). This collection is mostly focused on companies that hurt existing Open Source software. Such as sending a cease and desist to an unofficial plugin/extension or closing down software that was originally open source.
Maybe your could also add organisations (companies, government agencies, NGOs,…) that create standards in such a way that the standard is hard or impossible to implement in open source implementations?
I was more thinking about things like governments that decide that every implementation of something must be certified to be used, e.g. with wireless technologies. Not so much implementation as specification or legal compliance barriers to open source basically.
You raise a good point though, financial barriers such as per user pricing that are hard to implement for software distributed for free would be quite similar.
I think it’s just a larger undertaking. Like mentioned in the last comments. People either need to address that as the main focus for some new major release and work on it. Or subdivide it and find people to work on the individual components to make it happen (gradually).
Also there is always the thing with hobby / free software projects. Sometimes people focus on functionality and features and not so much on asthetics and the first impression. I agree the welcome screen is somewhat important as it’s the first thing a new player sees. But I also like the developers to work on features which enhance the actual gameplay because I just see that screen for 10 seconds and it’s kind of a waste of time to improve it for someone like me. The current screen works alright. There are several dynamics affecting projects: “Perfect is the enemy of good” (don’t make it too complicated) but also sometimes a makeshift solution or something that works “okay” stays inplace indefinitely because “it works” and people concentrate on other stuff. That’s just how things work. It takes deliberate effort to work against those dynamics.
So I’d say the cause is, their focus is somewhere else.
I always thought about why don’t FOSS projects that are at risk of getting sued by big corp like (NewPipe, Popcorn Time, streamio, tachiyomi …) embrace the dark web or git over torrent via VPN, so their projects don’t get threatened with take downs. z-library ended having to move to the dark web after all.
The FSF actively encourages people to do that, and yes their legal team is there. Not sure whether it’s “powerful” but surely better than a single developer
opensource
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.